Topic: End of Governments - page 5. (Read 6575 times)

Just to add,

"End of Government"

Does not = end of security, safety, civil jobs/service, etc, etc, etc

Most everything is privatised these days anyway.

And generally I meant the "end of government (as it exists now, e.g. corrupt and greed led)"

And the recognition of a State towards Bitcoin -

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fincen-addresses-bitcoin-154672

Blink and you'll miss it, welcome to tomorrow

I'll repost this as a reminder:


Have a great night.

Bending? Wow. You must be the real deal, a guy who whines his whole life and simultaneously projects the facade of being someone who doesn't bend. Guess what? I bet you've bent over all your life just like the rest of us.

Only difference is, most of us don't whine, nor feel like we're bending over, because we aren't. But those who whine about it - those are the ones really feeling the shaft. Life sucks so bad for you, dude.

Interesting notion altho i would say that in general this varies much more than just being extremes.
I think that it is strength in numbers in a given situation that forces people into either of the camp. But when not forced to choose i'd say every person has a different subset of what they want secured by what level of their social group and what they want to secure as individuals.

That would be pretty shitty because most adults have no clear understanding of complex contracts, never mind one that defines your role in society.
And what if i find out that i don't like the country when i'm 40? Tough luck? Who's gonna accept that?


The amish will be making your brain so small when you're a kid that when you're confronted with the rest of society you are sure to get a sensory overload and run back home to mommy and poppy while crying 'Why is is flashing so much?!'.
Then mom and pop can reassure you that here is the best place for your tender soul to spend the rest of its time.
It's a pretty effective way of indoctrination and propably the only mechanism that keeps the amish population somewhat level.

Wait, what?

So then what is the actual ratio of successfull anarchies against successfull states?
Or even, how many stability years have been noted throughout history for anarchies and for states?

Don't try to falsify history.


Also, the icelandic commonwealth was far from an anarchy.

Yeah, and since these works became increasingly built by private contractors the quality became an issue.
That is because the step of outsourcing gives an incentive to the issuer to get the job done as cheaply as possible and it gives the contractor an incentive to do it as cheap as possible. Result: expensive roads that break easily and in the long run cost more to society than had it all been done by an institution.
By creating incentive for ever cheaper services we are digging a hole under society.

Yeah, well that guy is pretty amazingly wrong.
He is constantly arguing from within a protected society.
He only deals with people following their incentive to cooperate.
Unfortunately not all humans feel this way and they are a large enough group to form a society of their own with completely different sets of laws from your local laws which will prevent interoperability.

I think he is right that you can create a core of a system that operates like he suggests.
He is just way too optimistical about how such a system would operate at the fringes.
Dealing with fringes has been the greatest success of modern society and it is why we got to have this period of relative peace.

Another striking brainfart on the part of the narrator is that he seems to think that the most profitable way for any company to operate is by getting the best possible deal for their customers.
Companies usually have only one incentive: make more money.
If that can be achieved by screwing over their customers than that will become a reality sooner or later.

Another effect of his way of thinking is these protection enforcement service agencies will have to conglomerate over time.
This is because he argues that these agencies will mediate in the differences of law between themselfs.
This naturally leads to stuff like treaties and in the end you get a multiheaded dragon not disimilar to our current military systems, but with the incentive of making money.
So after all these law arbitration processes have settled down we will get a new military top dog that does all the 'peace keeping' in the world and has the incentive to make money from operating.
Great...
 

Nope. Security is a status.
A service can then make sure a status of peace is maintained.
If you do not more or less centralize the power used for maintaining peace you get rivalry (because one mans peace is another mans chaos) and that means no security untill a top dog arises. This top dog would be basically the same thing as a government protecting you only it will be Sony or Nike or Microsoft. And you will live in a city protected by such a multinational and will be working in their (or their friends) factories.
This will happen because multinationals have enourmous power world wide (they provide goods, they provide jobs, they have capital, they have real estate and they have an established global organisation). Some multinationals already have more power than some nations.
You will exchange a broken democratic system for a slave-worker operated multinational where a human beings life is measured in how much money they can make for the company.

And all that because you want to float your peace on a market.

I live with the evils of too much liberty. How you structure your life is no concern of mine.

Sais you by typing it on a computer and sending it to us over the internets...
It seems to me you are not willing to live without these inconveniencies.

If that's your paradigm, it's no wonder we have a difficult time communicating.

There are many others. Morals, mores, religious experience, customs, rituals, laws, etc., spring from the mirror neuron receptors. Social dynamics such as heirarchy predate the evolution of homo sapien. Technically we are nothing but food machines for the bacterial collectives that we spring from and infest our bodies and will consume us when we expire.

The rights of the individual vs. the power of the collective is one of the oldest paradigms there is. What paradigm are you working under?

Then that is the limit of political history. I don't bind myself to currently accepted paradigms.

One is either prone to accept the yoke or not. If nothing else, this is what political history teaches us.

I am not accepting your false dichotomy of statist vs. agorist (or whatever). There are a lot of books these days with highly provocative themes. Most of them use cherry-picked facts and twist statistics into things that would make a contortionist wince. I have my own hypotheses that are far more complex and involve the rise of religion, developmental psychology, linguistics, and other correlational research. People tend to see the patterns they want to see in complex systems, but these systems arose from somewhere and somewhen. I am more curious about fundamental forces in psychohistory and sociohistory.

I don't believe either one of us can be persuaded from our positions so I'm going to refrain from further engagement in a pissing contest. I've found that by and large, an individual's nature is either geared toward bending to the authority of the State and its decrees or its geared to less centralized modes of existence. No amount of debate is going to change a person's nature.

An excellent history of the rise of centralized authority of the past 100 years and its fruits is found in Advance To Barbarism: The Development of Total Warfare From Sarajevo to Hiroshima by Veale. You probably won't see this work used as a history book in any state-funded university.

As a return, perhaps you could direct me to a work that details the positive aspects of the centralized control of economic, jurisdictional and civil matters. We have examples in the Soviet Union, Maoist and modern China, the European Union and the United States so there's plenty to draw from.

I did not proffer an argument about Bitcoin in this discussion, so I'll concede the point if I did. I would truly like to see a study about how bandits form governments as the argument you are championing:

I'll look around and get back to you. While I'm doing that, find me a something in a peer reviewed science journal supporting Bitcoin. I'll probably have a little more luck than you will but let's post our findings here.


I've been called worse. In contrast, "naive" is a compliment.